Why the study?
Does carperitide improve hemodynamics and renal function in a dog model of acute congestive heart failure compared to other anti-heart failure agents?
Does carperitide improve hemodynamics and renal function in a dog model of acute congestive heart failure compared to other anti-heart failure agents?
Carperitide improves hemodynamics by reducing LVEDP and myocardial oxygen consumption while increasing diuresis in a canine model of acute congestive heart failure.
Supports investigation of carperitide in acute HF models; human trials required before clinical consideration.
Effects of carperitide (alpha-human atrial natriuretic peptide) on hemodynamics and renal function in dogs with congestive heart failure (CHF) produced by volume expansion and ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery were compared with those of various anti-heart failure agents (cardiotonic, vasodilator and diuretic). Carperitide (0.1-1 microgram/kg/min) dose-dependently decreased the elevated left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP). No significant changes in cardiac contractility (LV dP/dtmax) and heart rate (HR) were noted, although cardiac output (CO) tended to reduce during the infusion of carperitide. Nitroglycerin (NG; 3 micrograms/kg/min) and furosemide (1 mg/kg) also decreased LVEDP, but the potency was less than that of carperitide. Sodium nitroprusside (SNP; 10 micrograms/kg/min) and dobutamine (10 micrograms/kg/min) caused a reduction in LVEDP and increased CO with an increase in HR. Hydralazine (H; 100 micrograms/kg/min) increased CO without reduction in LVEDP and induced a pronounced increase in HR. Double product (systolic blood pressure x HR), an index of myocardial oxygen consumption, was significantly reduced by carperitide, but significantly increased by DB and H. Carperitide, unlike NG, SNP, H and DB, increased urine volume and urinary electrolyte excretion. These results suggest that carperitide will be an useful therapeutic agent for the treatment of CHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hidaka et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: